FILM VS DIGITAL

why do directors use digital instead of film now? they say it's cheaper but holy shit it looks so much worse, everything is grey and low contrast

only michael mann makes it work to his advantage and he's just gonna fucking die

it's more convinient and cheaper. capitalism in its purest form.
just water down what you're making cause it's more cost efficient, who cares about anything else?

more important question why don't they film in 60 fps 4k

60fps is disgusting for film

Film is sharper than 4k.

>Everything is grey and low contrast
That's the grade not the medium

>only michael mann makes it work to his advantage
o-ok

>everything is grey and low contrast
I don't believe this. Even if it was, it's not like they can't (and don't) apply filters in post.

Plebs still think 24fps is more cinematic

It allows directors to make more takes.

It's a shit response I know but that's what it is.

I've worked with professional cameras, the lighting capabilities are always shit. It's always such a short scale of light that you can work with. I really don't know much about film, though.

Because film is a physical object. Storage space, exposure to elements, having to literally cut and paste strips of it in editing, it has to be manufactured, cameras are more expensive... digital is more convenient which weighs more than it being harder to make look good.

People who desire higher framerates don't understand film in the first place, they should go work in sports broadcasting or make commercials. Films aren't real. They aren't intended to look 'real'.

Such is a nation of weakness that is exemplified through new technology. You know that physical endurance usually leads to higher quality execution of projects, right?

I mean, look at apocalypse now or Barry Lyndon compared to any movie released this year.

Digital is cheaper and easier.

Digital now looks very good. Film now has decreased massively in quality since it's peak in the 90's.

Michael Mann's last two films (Public Enemie and Blackhat) looked like complete and utter fucking unwatchable garbage. Truly disgustingly shit visually. Miami Vice and Collateral were both iffy in many parts too.

lol

Film has better range, especially in highlights.

Film is also (though getting less and less so) a format that has multiple stocks.

Digital motion picture cameras are basically "all-in-one". We'll get a time in the near future where you will have swap out chips, with chips designed for specific and niche situtions, like film was. Right now you have digital cameras with this huge range of ISO's. I'm sure you'll get cameras with switchable chips that concentrate on doing 50-200 really, really well, and 200-500 really really well, and 500-800 and so on and so on.

>A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film. Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you'd need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.

Source: ken rockwell

I like film, but I know why studios prefer digital. It'll only get worse as new generations of filmmakers start with digital because it's what's available, they don't even get to make the choice.

He's right.

35mm's resolution can, sorta, technically match 6k (according to some DP's - though most people think 2-4k is the limit).

65mm scanned at less than 8k is a waste.

nothing digital has the cool special feeling of a real movie, even a piece of trash such as star wars 7 at least was colorful and looked like a legitimate blockbuster at times

4k? Okay
60 fps? Too much time and money for CGI and an awkward feel.

i dont care 60 fps looks better to me

>what is color correction

>Source: ken rockwell

This man is absolutely clueless. Do no cite him.

It depends on the stock. However I have never gotten any higher than 30mp out of the finest grain low speed photographic b&w film in 35mm. Certainly not higher speed cine film.

Quick! Should I buy 16mm camera or a good DSLR?

t.retard

>Films aren't real. They aren't intended to look 'real'.
lmao

DSLR
I can assure you you will at most create 5 minutes of footage with your 16mm camera and will have spent so much time and money on it and will be so disappointed by how shit your footage looks and how it get even worse when you're trying to digitally edit it that you'll never pick the thing up again.

>everything is grey and low contrast
That's your shit DP.

Is webm film or digital?

>Film has better range, especially in highlights.
no, it just has better roll off because digital range has a hard ceiling. exposed properly, digital can have more range than film

>Film is also (though getting less and less so) a format that has multiple stocks.
this is a bad thing. the "look" is essentially baked in if you choose a specific stock.

>We'll get a time in the near future where you will have swap out chips, with chips designed for specific and niche situtions, like film was
they're called LUTs and DPs have been using them for years, stupid

>I'm sure you'll get cameras with switchable chips that concentrate on doing 50-200 really, really well, and 200-500 really really well, and 500-800 and so on and so on
this makes no sense whatsoever. it's much cheaper to just add a light than have an extra chip for your camera for when you want it to be brighter, and it would be way too fucking expensive and time consuming to have to swap lenses AND chips every time you want to adjust the lighting in a scene. it's like saying that one day people will carry around 6 pairs of sunglasses for different times of day.

i'd say it's the shit colorist, but they pretty much just do whatever the DP and director tell them to do, and DP/directors these days seem obsessed with making everything either grey, cyan or orange for some reason

>having to literally cut and paste strips of it in editing
people haven't done that for years. anything shot on film now is scanned and turned into a digital negative

Anyone knows what film stock was used in the original run of Twin Peaks?
It has such a nice warmth to it.

>65mm scanned at less than 8k is a waste.
the screen would have to be massive for 8k to be even necessary, and in order to see the whole picture you'd have to stand so far away that you would never notice the difference. it works for IMAX and all those special super-wide/curved screens, but in any normal theatre environment there's literally no reason not to just shoot 35mm or 2k. even 4k isn't that much noticeably better.

the only reason more people are shooting higher resolution is because it makes keying and rotoscoping easier in post because there's a more defined edge.when you're all zoomed in.

not sure the exacts but imdb says season 1 was fuji stock on arriflex cameras and season 2 was kodak stock on panaflex cameras

film

>Japan is already broadcasting 8k to home TVs
>It's somehow a preposterous thing to have 8k on a giant fucking theater screen
Please stop pretending you know what you're talking about.